Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Seth]

Sadly, Seth, you are almost certainly correct in assessing that more gun control is unlikely. The excessive and easily prevented murder toll will continue. Makes me sad to ponder the sheer selfishness and stupidity that costs so many lives.

Beats the cost of a disarmed citizenry, which is up near a hundred million so far in the last century or so.

It was very well armed citizenry that did all the killing in the last century, rednecks with guns is a very good description of the people who ran concentration camps

How ignorant can one person be...

[Collector1337]

Collector

I have consistently identified hand guns as the main problem. An assault rifle cannot be tucked in a back pocket, hidden from anyone else, and pulled out when its owner loses his temper or gets nasty drunk.

The stats are clear. Five sixths of all firearms murders are done with hand guns, and only one sixth with all other kinds of firearms. Hand guns are the problem, and should be removed from civilian ownership. Other nations have done this, and their murder rate is a fraction of the hand gun toting USA.

It was a yes or no question.

Address it as such.

Don't reply with this garbage.

You can qualify it if you like. But, answer yes or no like a normal fucking person first.

[JimC]

Collector

I have consistently identified hand guns as the main problem. An assault rifle cannot be tucked in a back pocket, hidden from anyone else, and pulled out when its owner loses his temper or gets nasty drunk.

The stats are clear. Five sixths of all firearms murders are done with hand guns, and only one sixth with all other kinds of firearms. Hand guns are the problem, and should be removed from civilian ownership. Other nations have done this, and their murder rate is a fraction of the hand gun toting USA.

It was a yes or no question.

Address it as such.

Don't reply with this garbage.

You can qualify it if you like. But, answer yes or no like a normal fucking person first.

Your posting style is aggressive, intolerant, contemptuous, one dimensional and utterly unintelligent.

You bring nothing of worth to this forum.

It would be delightful if you left.

[Pappa]

Collector

I have consistently identified hand guns as the main problem. An assault rifle cannot be tucked in a back pocket, hidden from anyone else, and pulled out when its owner loses his temper or gets nasty drunk.

The stats are clear. Five sixths of all firearms murders are done with hand guns, and only one sixth with all other kinds of firearms. Hand guns are the problem, and should be removed from civilian ownership. Other nations have done this, and their murder rate is a fraction of the hand gun toting USA.

It was a yes or no question.

Address it as such.

Don't reply with this garbage.

You can qualify it if you like. But, answer yes or no like a normal fucking person first.

Your posting style is aggressive, intolerant, contemptuous, one dimensional and utterly unintelligent.

You bring nothing of worth to this forum.

It would be delightful if you left.

That's the second time in 5 minutes I've seen you post something like that.

Do the members think this kind of stuff is good for the forum?

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

"Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 1...2...3...4...And counting......"






PS - (Oh yeah, watch the ad hominem attacks and observe the "play nice" rule please, people. )

[Seth]

That's the second time in 5 minutes I've seen you post something like that.

Do the members think this kind of stuff is good for the forum?

Meh, he's probably drunk. Everybody gets a wild hair every once and a while. I've had the same feeling from time to time but I try not to express it that way.

[Blind groper]

My sympathy is with Jim.

He was responding to a very ungracious post by Collector.

Collector

You criticised me for responding to an implied question with an expansion, instead of yes or no. To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule prohibiting my type of response. I tend to think an explanation is more valuable than bald comments that tell nothing.

[Blind groper]

For those who still believe that guns make you safer, look at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 0073291506

This study shows that having a gun in the home actually increases your risk of being murdered by 2 to 4 times.

What the New England Journal of Medicine (one of the most reputable medical journals) actually says is :
"case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

[Jason]

Yes. "By a family member or intimate acquaintance".

Not exactly compelling evidence that there's any connection between my owning firearms and the odds of me being killed by a random crack junkie at 3 am because he wants the $20 in my wallet.

[laklak]

Yes. "By a family member or intimate acquaintance".

Not if I get the drop on 'em.

[Collector1337]

Collector

I have consistently identified hand guns as the main problem. An assault rifle cannot be tucked in a back pocket, hidden from anyone else, and pulled out when its owner loses his temper or gets nasty drunk.

The stats are clear. Five sixths of all firearms murders are done with hand guns, and only one sixth with all other kinds of firearms. Hand guns are the problem, and should be removed from civilian ownership. Other nations have done this, and their murder rate is a fraction of the hand gun toting USA.

It was a yes or no question.

Address it as such.

Don't reply with this garbage.

You can qualify it if you like. But, answer yes or no like a normal fucking person first.

Your posting style is aggressive, intolerant, contemptuous, one dimensional and utterly unintelligent.

You bring nothing of worth to this forum.

It would be delightful if you left.

I wouldn't post like that if you didn't post like this.

[Blind groper]

Yes. "By a family member or intimate acquaintance".

Not exactly compelling evidence that there's any connection between my owning firearms and the odds of me being killed by a random crack junkie at 3 am because he wants the $20 in my wallet.

I have always stated that the primary risk is from someone you know, not from some random crack junkie.

Getting upset about junkies is like wearing a crash helmet when walking in case of meteor impact, and refusing to put on a seat belt in the car. The sane person protects against the high risks, and pays less heed to low risks.

The greatest risk of being murdered is by having a hand gun at home. The risk of being killed by a random crack junkie is miniscule. So the sane way to reduce the risk of being murdered is to make sure there is no hand gun at home.

The NEJM also showed in a previous issue that having a hand gun at home increased the risk of a family member dying by suicide by a factor of twice to ten times the risk, depending on how securely it is stored.

So having a hand gun in the home is just plain stooooopid!

[Jason]

Yes. "By a family member or intimate acquaintance".

Not exactly compelling evidence that there's any connection between my owning firearms and the odds of me being killed by a random crack junkie at 3 am because he wants the $20 in my wallet.

I have always stated that the primary risk is from someone you know, not from some random crack junkie.

Getting upset about junkies is like wearing a crash helmet when walking in case of meteor impact, and refusing to put on a seat belt in the car. The sane person protects against the high risks, and pays less heed to low risks.

Indeed, except the argument for owning guns is almost always primarily home defense. So either the public has a blind side the size of Waco Texas, or the public will to actually do something lies in another direction.

[Collector1337]

Yes. "By a family member or intimate acquaintance".

Not exactly compelling evidence that there's any connection between my owning firearms and the odds of me being killed by a random crack junkie at 3 am because he wants the $20 in my wallet.

I have always stated that the primary risk is from someone you know, not from some random crack junkie.

Getting upset about junkies is like wearing a crash helmet when walking in case of meteor impact, and refusing to put on a seat belt in the car. The sane person protects against the high risks, and pays less heed to low risks.

The greatest risk of being murdered is by having a hand gun at home. The risk of being killed by a random crack junkie is miniscule. So the sane way to reduce the risk of being murdered is to make sure there is no hand gun at home.

The NEJM also showed in a previous issue that having a hand gun at home increased the risk of a family member dying by suicide by a factor of twice to ten times the risk, depending on how securely it is stored.

So having a hand gun in the home is just plain stooooopid!

So, you're saying that if I own a gun, someone who I know, is going to get a hold of my own gun, and kill me with it?

[Jason]

If you read the study he linked, yes, that is the conclusion.